Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorMoshina, Nataliia
dc.contributor.authorGräwingholt, Axel
dc.contributor.authorLång, Kristina
dc.contributor.authorMann, Ritse
dc.contributor.authorHovda, Tone
dc.contributor.authorHoff, Solveig Kristin Roth
dc.contributor.authorSkaane, Per
dc.contributor.authorLee, Christoph I.
dc.contributor.authorAase, Hildegunn Siv
dc.contributor.authorAslaksen, Aslak Bjarne
dc.contributor.authorHofvind, Solveig Sand-Hanssen
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-22T11:24:45Z
dc.date.available2024-08-22T11:24:45Z
dc.date.issued2024-02-08
dc.description.abstractObjectives - The randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT + SM) versus digital mammography (DM) (the To-Be 1 trial), 2016–2017, did not result in higher cancer detection for DBT + SM. We aimed to determine if negative cases prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancers from DBT + SM were due to interpretive error.<p> <p>Methods - Five external breast radiologists performed the individual blinded review of 239 screening examinations (90 true negative, 39 false positive, 19 prior to interval cancer, and 91 prior to consecutive screen-detected cancer) and the informed consensus review of examinations prior to interval and screen-detected cancers (n = 110). The reviewers marked suspicious findings with a score of 1–5 (probability of malignancy). A case was false negative if ≥ 2 radiologists assigned the cancer site with a score of ≥ 2 in the blinded review and if the case was assigned as false negative by a consensus in the informed review.<p> <p>Results - In the informed review, 5.3% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 18.7% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were considered false negative. In the blinded review, 10.6% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 42.9% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were scored ≥ 2. A score of ≥ 2 was assigned to 47.8% of negative and 89.7% of false positive examinations.<p> <p>Conclusions - The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT + SM versus DM in the To-Be 1 trial is complex and not due to interpretive error alone.en_US
dc.identifier.citationMoshina, Gräwingholt, Lång, Mann, Hovda, Hoff, Skaane, Lee, Aase, Aslaksen, Hofvind. Digital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening: false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trial. Insight into Imaging. 2024;15(1)
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2259146
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13244-023-01604-5
dc.identifier.issn1869-4101
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/34368
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_US
dc.relation.journalInsight into Imaging
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2024 The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en_US
dc.titleDigital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening: false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trialen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Med mindre det står noe annet, er denne innførselens lisens beskrevet som Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)